Le 24-mars-06, à 16:31, 1Z a écrit :
> > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Le 20-mars-06, à 00:04, John M a écrit : >> >> >>> A Turing machine does nothing (by itself). Don't take >>> the power for granted. Something has to OPERATE it to >>> do anything. >> >> >> Why? How could a digital machine distinguish reality, virtual >> reality, >> arithmetical reality, etc. > > The question is about what computers are , form a 3rd-person > perspective, > not about what a machine would see from its own 1st person perspective. > We know we have a 1st person perspecitve, and we have 3rd person > knowledge > of computers. That is the perspective of John's question. You question > is > from a machine's 1st person perspective. We don't even know that > digitial computers have a 1st-person perspective. It is our assumption. "I" am conscious and "I" am turing emulable. So some machine "can think". > Your question might > not even > be valid. It is enough that the reasoning be valid. If we get a contradiction, we will abandon comp. > > >>> Bruno: >>> let me draw your attention to one little phrasing in >>> Hal's (and everybody else's, I presume, as I read >>> these posts)- text: >>> "If we assume..." >>> And if we do not? >> >> >> You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is based >> on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non definable) >> world-views. > > Almost all science is based on the implicit assumption of a "stuffy" > world view. No. This is a simplifying methodological assumption, but there is no evidence it is necessary. Few physicists use it. Except the week-end when they doesn't want to be copnfronted with tricky foundational problems. True, the idea that there is a stuffy universe, and that "real" = what we measure, is in vogue since Aristotle, but it is incompatible with comp (this has been proved, I am not speculating. I can prove it to you if you are interested). > Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who seek to deny it. As I just said the proof already exists. See my url). (Not all realises this, and I don't insist because I like the idea of others finding it by themselves). But see my url or ask me. I don't pretend it is simple, but unless denying the 1-3 difference people who study it understand it, in general. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
